WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Cineanalyst The eighth film in Hammer's Dracula series and the third of that series to feature both Christopher Lee as the Count and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" is a rather seamless continuation of the last film in the series, "Dracula A.D. 1972." That alone is unusual for the series, which frequently altered its locations and vampire facts from film to film. "Dracula A.D. 1972," for instance, with an opening sequence set in 1872, entirely disregarded the prior six films, which were set after that date. This time, there's a different actress playing Van Helsing's granddaughter, but the film is otherwise quite faithful to its immediate predecessor. And, fortunately, that didn't include continuing the depiction of hippie youth culture that partially ruined the former film.Although a rare competent Hammer sequel in this regard, it's otherwise a not very interesting Dracula feature. The premise of a centuries-old vampire rising to the top of a corporation and amassing a satanic cult is promising, but handled poorly here. Given the frequent use of flashbacks of a satanic ritual, the filmmakers seemed to think it more intriguing than I did. According to the time frame given within the narrative, Dracula managed these tasks within the span of little more than a couple years since the last time he died, and before that brief period of life, as it were, he'd been dead for a century. And, his plan is foiled even more quickly once Van Helsing is alerted to it. Apparently, Dracula is brilliant enough to master capitalism and cultism within a couple years despite most of his experiences being from the Victorian age and, perhaps, even more ancient than that; yet, he's also stupid enough to easily be defeated time and again by a family with an expertise in occultism. Contrary to Bram Stoker's novel, this Dracula isn't vulnerable to modern inventions; here, he uses the newest in surveillance technology, including trip alarms and cameras, and the inability to photograph him helps to temporarily foil the surveillance methods employed by the police. Dracula also employs modern science to increase the old threat of plague. Most incredulously, we're to believe Dracula does all of this because he's suicidal and wants to bring about Armageddon.Although "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" raises the stakes in the series--making Dracula a truly existential threat to all of humanity, Hammer's vampires remain quite weak. The supposed purity of running water being fatal to them, which the last film started, results in a scene where a herd of female vampires chained in a basement are wiped out by a sprinkler system. Once again, Van Helsing lists the ways vampires can be defeated, and you can take to the bank that the new one he mentions will turn out to be important by the end. This time, it's hawthorn bush-a particularly lame way to catch a vampire, I must say. Also, after a hiatus in the most recent Hammer Dracula films, the trope of a makeshift cross makes a comeback here.

Stevieboy666 I can remember staying up late to watch this on the BBC back in the 1980s when I was a kid and I loved it. It's a sexy mix of black magic and vampirism, set in modern London, though naturally it does look dated now. I do believe that it was actually screened uncut but sadly it is currently only available on VHS or DVD in cut form, surely it's only a matter of time until it gets a uncut release. Christopher Lee fans may be a bit disappointed as he is not on screen much but there's plenty of the great Peter Cushing. Hammer have made much better Dracula movies but for fans it is still good viewing.

GusF Given that it marks Christopher Lee's swansong as Count Dracula, it's quite fitting that the film raises the stakes - no pun intended! - by having him plot to destroy all of humanity. In many respects, it's the most modern film in the series. What's particularly interesting about it is that it features a greater degree of continuity than any of the previous films - continuity in the Hammer "Dracula" films is usually limited to "Dracula died in the last one so we need to resurrect him" - given that it's a direct sequel to "Dracula A.D. 1972". Michael Coles reprises his role as Inspector Murray from that film, becoming the only actor other than Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing to play the same character in more than one film in the series. Speaking of Lee and Cushing, this is the only film in the series in which they actually have a conversation since they don't speak to each other at all in "Dracula" and barely do so in "Dracula A.D. 1972". Since this is Lee's final performance as the character, it's a shame that Dracula's death scene is the weakest of the series. This is a problem with the script rather than Joanna Lumley's performance but Jessica Van Helsing seems to have lost most of her personality since the last film.

callanvass This is the worst Dracula without a doubt. I wasn't exactly "bored" but it's fairly lifeless. One thing I noticed was that it lacks the stylistic touches that Hammer films usually have, which was always integral in my opinion. Everything seems old, worn down, and dreary. It wasn't a very positive experience. I will give credit to some solid cinematography of London, especially in the opening credits. There are some picturesque scenes that are really well done. They tried to rejuvenate the series with the contemporary setting, and placing Dracula in the modern era, but it doesn't fit at all. Count Dracula felt out of place in this movie. Christopher Lee himself doesn't look very enthusiastic about being in this movie. He seems to be on auto-pilot, not that I blame him. He didn't have a whole lot to do, and he didn't have a great deal of screen time. I read on Wikipedia that Lee was becoming more disillusioned with each new Dracula movie, and it shows. It wasn't a great performance, his send off is being killed by a thorn bush. How's that for gratitude? Peter Cushing is once again our protagonist as Van Helsing. Since this is set in the modern era, he is a "descendant" of the original Van Helsing in the earlier Dracula movies. Cushing is dependable as always, even when he doesn't have much to work with. I usually get excited whenever Lee & Cushing face off. Two of the greatest horror veterans in history, but it felt contrived and ordinary in this one, which is quite sad. Joanna Lumley is subtly sexy as Van Helsing's granddaughter. She doesn't have a whole lot to do either. I felt there were too many pointless characters. Aside from a good opening escape, and a suspenseful attack in a cellar, this movie doesn't have much as far as thrills go. Final Thoughts: It's a bit disillusioning to see Christopher Lee go out like he did. Hammer reinvented Dracula, and to see a series of this magnitude end on a whimper is saddening. 4.7/10